Clinton Blessed By The Incompetence Of His Enemies

by David Corn

The latter action was accompanied by much non-Republican snickering, since the move looked like affirmative action. Watts, a two-termer, had campaigned for the job by arguing that the party needs to display its diversity. (In the House, he's it: the sole black Republican.)

That the Republicans acted hypocritically was not surprising, but what was hard to fathom was that they anointed as their chief message-man a self-proclaimed Christian-right-hugging moralist who once fathered a child out of wedlock. (In a 1995 interview with the Tulsa World, Watts declined to say whether he had ever provided financial support for this daughter.) This fact was known to the Republican caucus -- though it was scantily reported -- and it provided the GOPers no pause.

Perhaps they figured that in the party of onetime-philanderer Henry Hyde and Dan Burton (another non-married procreator), the easy-lovin' Watts truly represents the Republican caucus. Or perhaps they were attracted to Watts' daring proposal on how to improve Republicans' electoral prospects: hire more consultants. In any event, the lineup of the GOP leadership holds little significance. All those elected, including presumed speaker-to-be Bob Livingston, scored perfect 100s on the Christian Coalition scorecard. It will be the old whines in a new slate.

As tough as it was to comprehend the GOP leadership votes, it was more difficult to understand the Republican strategy on impeachment. Take this two-question quiz: First, who are the most unpopular and scorned characters in the sordid Monicagate saga? That's easy: Kenneth Starr and Linda Tripp. Second, who did the Republicans thrust in front of the public as their impeachment hearings lifted off? If you said Kenneth Starr and Linda Tripp, you're right. Why lead with the villains? The Tripp tapes could only sicken those still listening: They were a painful reminder of why many Americans hate this whole mess and wish it would fade away. Given that, from a GOP perspective, it was a dumb lead-in to the Big Day, which turned out not to be so large after all.

In the end, the GOP miscalculation regarding the Tripp tapes was immaterial, for Starr's appearance before the House Judiciary Committee was a nothingburger. Those who suffer from Wishful Republican Syndrome (WRS) were hoping that a strong Starr performance might nudge public opinion in a pro-impeachment direction. They were, of course, mistaken. Starr did fine, fending off most Democratic swipes. He talked slowly, kept his cool, ducked some of the more troublesome inquiries (about leaks, his conflicts of interest and his office's initial handling of Monica Lewinsky), and ran out the clock on harsh questioners.

He exonerated the President regarding Travelgate and Filegate -- conservative legal crusader Larry Klayman must have had fits -- but Starr seemed to suggest that President Clinton can be indicted for his Monica-related offenses after he leaves office, prompting a few reporters to speculate that Starr indicted Webster Hubbell once again so that Starr will still be in business when Clinton departs 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Then he can really go after the guy. But Starr acquitted himself well, just not well enough to motivate millions to take to the streets to call for Clinton's head. And that must have disappointed all the WRS sufferers out there.

Under these circumstances, the White House and congressional Democrats should let the Republicans go through the motions and not lend any drama to the desultory proceedings. "All the political aides in the White House were screaming that it was nuts to send anyone to the hearing," a White House aide said. "But all the lawyers wanted to do it. For them, it was personal. And you have to assume that Clinton agreed with them."

Still, the showdown between Starr and David Kendall, the President's attorney, was a letdown. Kendall's questioning was largely irrelevant; he dwelled on tangential matters, without scoring points; he let Starr talk too much. He didn't break him. Neither did the Democrats.

Overall, it was an unfulfilling session. Democrats bashed away at Starr, trying to portray him as a threat to the republic. Republicans, in response, were fitting him for a spot on Mount Rushmore.

Absent from much of the proceeding was a man named Bill Clinton. He is -- it bears repeating -- blessed by his enemies. Starr effectively detailed Clinton's serial lying and explained why this is not just about sex. He argued his case well, if ploddingly, although he did dwell obsessively on every presidential prevarication. But neither Starr, with his excesses, nor the Republicans, with their hypocritical outrage over Clinton's lies, possess the moral authority for prosecuting the President. He wins because his foes are losers.

Ultimately, the long-awaited Starr hearing had no real meaning. It proved nothing, and it provided no new information. Starr, even if he was slippery on several matters, came across as no demon. But it's too late for him to lead in the conservative cavalry, especially when he's so boring. This drone-filled hearing couldn't change the fundamentals.

Throughout the day, grinning Democratic aides and frustrated reporters of all ideological stripes -- from The Nation, The Weekly Standard, the New York Post -- were shaking their heads, amazed at the dismal dullness of the session and wondered, what was the point of it? To rehabilitate Starr? Big deal. Assume he was rehabilitated (even if ethics adviser Sam Dash quit, criticizing Starr for having improperly become an advocate for impeachment). At this point that doesn't gain anything for the Republicans. Starr had his chance to win over the public months ago -- with his actions. He failed when it counted the most.

The politics of impeachment have been settled. The only outstanding question is how the Republicans close this affair. Can they do so without bloody internal warfare? Impeachment is a spent force, so spent that the White House does not even have to mount a competent challenge.